A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court adjudicated on alleged electoral malpractices during the counting of votes for the election of the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation. The Presiding Officer, tasked with overseeing the election, defaced eight ballots cast in favor of the appellant, Kuldeep Kumar, rendering them invalid. The Court invalidated the result favoring the eighth respondent, Manoj Kumar, declaring the appellant as the duly elected Mayor. The judgment underscored the imperatives of free and fair elections, denounced malpractices by election officials, and invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure electoral justice. Directions were also issued to initiate proceedings against the Presiding Officer under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.

Keywords: Electoral Malpractices, Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, Presiding Officer Misconduct, Free and Fair Elections, Article 142, Section 340 CrPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Kuldeep Kumar v. U.T. Chandigarh and Others
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2874 of 2024
• iii) Judgment Date: 20 February 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.
• vi) Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI
• vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 693 : 2024 INSC 129
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
  • Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996
  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 340 of the CrPC, 1973
• ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly overruled.
• x) Case is Related to: Election Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The election for the Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation took place on 30 January 2024. Allegations surfaced that the Presiding Officer, Anil Masih, invalidated eight ballots cast in favor of the appellant, Kuldeep Kumar, by defacing them with ink marks during the counting process. The appellant, backed by an alliance between the Aam Aadmi Party and the Indian National Congress, challenged the election result, which declared the eighth respondent, Manoj Kumar of the Bharatiya Janata Party, as the winner. A writ petition filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed without interim relief, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The election was held on 30 January 2024, with 36 eligible voters, including elected councilors and the Member of Parliament for Chandigarh.
2. The appellant secured 12 votes, while the eighth respondent received 16 votes, with 8 votes declared invalid by the Presiding Officer.
3. Allegations were raised that the Presiding Officer deliberately defaced eight ballots, all cast in favor of the appellant.
4. The election proceedings were video-recorded, and subsequent scrutiny revealed malpractices by the Presiding Officer.
5. The appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 136, seeking justice and a declaration of his valid election as Mayor.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Presiding Officer’s actions during the counting process amounted to electoral malpractice.
2. Whether the eight ballots invalidated by the Presiding Officer were validly cast in favor of the appellant.
3. Whether the Supreme Court could exercise Article 142 jurisdiction to rectify the electoral injustice.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that the Presiding Officer intentionally defaced the ballots, violating the principles of free and fair elections.
2. It was contended that the ink marks placed by the Presiding Officer did not invalidate the ballots under Regulation 6(10) of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations, 1996.
3. The appellant emphasized the sanctity of the democratic process and sought the application of Article 142 to declare him as the duly elected Mayor.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Presiding Officer’s Defense: The Presiding Officer claimed that the marks were placed to identify ballots he deemed “defaced” during the counting process.
2. Eighth Respondent’s Defense: It was argued that the appellant sought relief to nullify the election process, which would necessitate a fresh election as the eighth respondent had already resigned.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation Regulations, 1996: Governs the election process, including criteria for invalid ballots.
2. Section 340 of CrPC: Allows the initiation of proceedings for offenses related to false statements in judicial proceedings.
3. Article 142 of the Constitution: Enables the Supreme Court to do complete justice.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

1. The Supreme Court held that the eight ballots were validly cast in favor of the appellant and that the Presiding Officer acted beyond his remit by defacing them.
2. The result of the election as declared by the Presiding Officer was quashed.
3. The Court declared the appellant, Kuldeep Kumar, as the validly elected Mayor.

b. Obiter Dicta:

1. The judgment emphasized that free and fair elections form the basic structure of the Constitution.
2. The Court decried the misuse of authority by election officials, terming the conduct as a serious misdemeanour.

c. Guidelines Issued:

1. Invoking Section 340 CrPC: Notice was issued to the Presiding Officer to explain why proceedings should not be initiated for making false statements.
2. Directions for safeguarding electoral records and ensuring transparency in future elections were issued.

J) CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS

This case reinforces the judiciary’s role as a guardian of democratic principles, ensuring that electoral malpractices do not undermine public trust. The invocation of Article 142 to restore justice demonstrates the Court’s proactive stance in protecting the sanctity of elections.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 412
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (1975) Supp SCC 1
3. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976
2. Chandigarh Municipal Corporation (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1996
3. Article 142 of the Constitution
4. Section 340 of the CrPC, 1973